SAF still using M203?
-
Have SIngapore move over to SAR-21 M203?? or we are still using the M16/M203 for the Grenadier role??
DAveC
-
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/publications/cyberpioneer/features/2011/mar11_fs2.html
-
looks like we have move to the SAR21 203 version! looks kool!...
DaveC
-
observing the U100 mark3a! looks like it is using an M16 type magazine! wouldn't it be dumb that you have a squad of trooper with SAR21 that cannot use the same mags! Hmmmm!
I've use the U100 when I was back in my NS days and love the weapon! ( compared to the M249 I shoot here its so lightweight!! ) as a SAW does its job real well minus the "jamomatic drum and mag system> ! I've seen the new Mark V here in US with the Improve magzine weld to take the Beta mags and all that.. but with SIngapore going to the SAR21 ! I would think they have device some attachement 2 use that!..
DaveC
-
U100 is e older design la.. came before SAR-21 appeared
-
I finished NS without shooting once !!!
-
Originally posted by davechng:
looks like we have move to the SAR21 203 version! looks kool!...
DaveC
Looks damn heavy too.
Interestingly enough the Israelis have an assault weapon like the SAR 21
-
Yes! the Isreali Tvar is similar in bullpup! but may have differnt design from the SAR21 ! the barrel length is a little shorter...
One more observation is that the SAR21 in Singapore still uses the 1/12 twist barrel thus only 55 grain M193 bullet only ! thus the effectiveness of longer range like beyond the 300 meter is questionable! no M855 or SS109!
and the 1:12 barrel will not stabalize the heavier 62 grain SS109! which have improve penetration capability .
DaveC
-
Don't think the SAR-21 GL is in service. Designed, yes, but in production or in use is still a question mark.
And the TAR-21? No surprise there. Who do you think co-designed the SAR/TAR with us? :) The only major difference is the buttstock probably.
One thing I'd really love to see is the U100 changing the mag well to the same AK style magwell on the SAR. At least then it can use the same mag. But then the 100 round mags can't be used... decisions, decisions....
TBH I think the U100 needs a major redesign and refit to modernize to current weapons standards. It's good, just needs a bit of prettying up. Ultimax 2.0 anyone?
-
Dave, think they changed to the 1:7 already as well as the 109, but there are rumors that the rounds we are using are actually not SS109 but STK ER. Can't confirm the ER round, but I can confirm the 1:7.
-
SAR-21 M-203 in service: Of late we've seen a large enough number of pics, and we can conclude that it's "quite" widely fielded (whatever that means).
Rounds: The rounds are certainly M193. I don't know of any other round introduced. Or at least there are certainly huge M193 stocks in inventory.
Co-designed: I'd like to see some literature suggesting its co-designed, but I am doubtful, simply because it is a sorry piece of work. Sorry, just calling it as it is. It is lacking in the fundamentals and has the frills to suggest it is a local product. At least it is of better quality than earlier ST products.
Ultimax: I've only seen an Ultimax mk1, and unfortunately it is in the earlier generation (SAR-80 and SR-88) in terms of quality. The mk 1 has a good basic design but again, is not very usable. Does anyone know if the later Ultimax marks are better in terms of quality and user friendliness?
-
I hate it when I type a long post... and it deletes itself.. @$#^%& *shakes fist*
"SAR-21 M-203 in service: Of late we've seen a large enough number of pics, and we can conclude that it's "quite" widely fielded (whatever that means)."
Any showing it "in field"?
As for the co-design, I'd admit it was probably speculation due to the similar operating design, visual design, naming convention and release date. No biggie if it wasn't. Common design goals after all.
I'm kind of fond of the SAR-21due to the scope and speed of target aquisition now that we don't need to fiddle with the sight picture. It's not as bad as some make it out to be. I'd trade it for my M-4 and call it 50:50 on the trade-off, weight and compactness vs ease of use. During conversion, I managed 7/8 for Fig15 and 8/8 for ATP at 300m.
The 7/8 is the reason I suspect we changed ammo, the droppage was less than I remembered/anticipated. Remember how we used to have to aim "half-body" up to generate a center of mass hit? (i.e top of head) Now, it's more like neck level (i.e same as 200m). But I could be wrong.
Next time anyone's on range, can we trouble you for a quick peek at the ammo-box markings? :)
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
I hate it when I type a long post... and it deletes itself.. @$#^%& *shakes fist*
"SAR-21 M-203 in service: Of late we've seen a large enough number of pics, and we can conclude that it's "quite" widely fielded (whatever that means)."
Any showing it "in field"?
As for the co-design, I'd admit it was probably speculation due to the similar operating design, visual design, naming convention and release date. No biggie if it wasn't. Common design goals after all.
I'm kind of fond of the SAR-21due to the scope and speed of target aquisition now that we don't need to fiddle with the sight picture. It's not as bad as some make it out to be. I'd trade it for my M-4 and call it 50:50 on the trade-off, weight and compactness vs ease of use. During conversion, I managed 7/8 for Fig15 and 8/8 for ATP at 300m.
The 7/8 is the reason I suspect we changed ammo, the droppage was less than I remembered/anticipated. Remember how we used to have to aim "half-body" up to generate a center of mass hit? (i.e top of head) Now, it's more like neck level (i.e same as 200m). But I could be wrong.
Next time anyone's on range, can we trouble you for a quick peek at the ammo-box markings? :)
But won't it be more bulky and heavier then the M16-M203?
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
I'm kind of fond of the SAR-21due to the scope and speed of target aquisition now that we don't need to fiddle with the sight picture. It's not as bad as some make it out to be. I'd trade it for my M-4 and call it 50:50 on the trade-off, weight and compactness vs ease of use. During conversion, I managed 7/8 for Fig15 and 8/8 for ATP at 300m.
The 7/8 is the reason I suspect we changed ammo, the droppage was less than I remembered/anticipated. Remember how we used to have to aim "half-body" up to generate a center of mass hit? (i.e top of head) Now, it's more like neck level (i.e same as 200m). But I could be wrong.
Next time anyone's on range, can we trouble you for a quick peek at the ammo-box markings? :)
The reason I am not impressed is its not easy to carry over long distances or aim rapidly, with the hands placed front to middle but the mass being mostly over the rear. I've only felt it up and fired it at Army Open House, and got 5/5 at 100m but it took some effort. It's also awkward to change magazines quickly, which is why I don't like all bullpups and hope more new rifles follow the G-36 and XM-8 example.
As to field pics of the SAR-21 M-203, I've seen alot of official pics of it, but none taken by soldiers themselves. I've noticed that M-16 M-203 official pics have disappeared, but this could be deliberate.
I'm not sure about quality, because SAR-21s I've seen are very new. I have however seen seen alot of Ultimax in poor state. They have 90s manufacturing dates, but are worn out like my unit's M-16S1s made early 80s and before. My friend in Ordnance says its a problem. (Funny that he is excused bearing arms but is posted there!)
I've scoped out the ammo for you, it is locally made M193 ball, in my unit and as recently as AOH 2009.
-
"But won't it be more bulky and heavier then the M16-M203?"
Bulkier, probably, weight wise, no idea though I suspect not. Ergronomics though.... it's the same weight as the M-16 but concentrated in a smaller package, so I think it's more DENSE than heavy
"The reason I am not impressed is its not easy to carry over long distances or aim rapidly"
Never had that problem. It's a bit bulkier than what I'm used to, but back slung or side slung, you won't feel most of it, and aiming is much faster than fiddling with sight pictures. In sight pictures, you need to ensure the front post is in the center of the rear sight appeture, THEN aligned to target before you have a chance of hitting. SAR-21? Dot on target/estimated target point. Shoot.
On the other hand, maybe why we don't feel it is that we already carry so much uncomfortable crap that the little bit extra goes unnoticed. :)
And thanks on the ammo lookout, they really need to recycle that lot of 5.56..
-
It is actually heavier by 600g, I meant it's harder to hold at the ready or point because it puts more weight on and behind the trigger hand. I've found slinging rifles more inconvenient than holding in my experience cos it bangs against the body.
I like the M-16 very much, we had a few stoppages on our old and worn out ones, but the 3 US carbine replacement tests show that stoppages on the weapon are not a problem. SOCOM is putting hold on the HK416 because the marginal improvement is not great enough, so I would be very happy with a new M-16. The SAR came in partly because ours are old and worn out, I believe the SAR-80 and 88 came out because of fears soldiers wouldn't clean their weapons properly (after Vietnam).
I get the feeling SAF soldiers are not allowed to back sling, I've never seen anyone do it, even if a guy has to grab 3 carrying handles in each hand. Recruits nowadays can right shoulder sling, I did it tactically to avoid being / getting extra.
Did you have much experience with SAR-21? I never had the opportunity. You had a nice experience?
-
Think I did about 3 high keys with it now, one was the conversion/ATP. It's ok. As for back slinging, don't think any CSM is so anal as to ban that, especially since he's probably one of the culprits :) But the fat barrel portion does dig into your back, so it's best done wearing SBO or vest for padding.
As for the mag change, you'll get used to it. The guide path is curved ala AK style so it's more natural for your hand. Main reason people are so against the mag is actually because we're too used to the M-16 style that we automatically try to pull it down and our hand automatically goes to the front to unload. As I said, give it time, you'll adapt.
And if you're happy with the stoppages on the M-16, you'll love the new stuff. No jams at the range I was at. 10 years on, who knows. But for now, enjoy.
-
It's not an outright ban on right shoulder slinging, but when they teach you one way, smart not to break it. My 2WO saw me do it once, said I look like a GI and asked me to sling the "normal way".
The tree that is tallest gets chopped down the fastest.
-
AI still using M203. Still using the old SAW too. Armskote must suck to hold inventory for 3 types of magazines hor.
-
"My 2WO saw me do it once, said I look like a GI and asked me to sling the "normal way"
Your CSM is anal then :)
-
The front part of the SAR-21 is too fat to have a good grab. The magazine at the back is restricting the hand movement.
It is a stupid rifle. 100% shoot air.
-
Originally posted by kira.sg:
The front part of the SAR-21 is too fat to have a good grab. The magazine at the back is restricting the hand movement.
It is a stupid rifle. 100% shoot air.
So do you prefer the old M-16?
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
Think I did about 3 high keys with it now, one was the conversion/ATP. It's ok. As for back slinging, don't think any CSM is so anal as to ban that, especially since he's probably one of the culprits :) But the fat barrel portion does dig into your back, so it's best done wearing SBO or vest for padding.
As for the mag change, you'll get used to it. The guide path is curved ala AK style so it's more natural for your hand. Main reason people are so against the mag is actually because we're too used to the M-16 style that we automatically try to pull it down and our hand automatically goes to the front to unload. As I said, give it time, you'll adapt.
And if you're happy with the stoppages on the M-16, you'll love the new stuff. No jams at the range I was at. 10 years on, who knows. But for now, enjoy.
With regard to the guide path being curved, can you bang it to seat it like M-16s? I notice AK mags are "edged" in front first, there is no deep well, but SARs have a well.
-
How about compared to the US M-4?
-
Compared to the M-4 I already did say 50/50, both have it's tradeoffs.
And yes, you can slap the mag in, for the fun of it.
And I disagree with it being a bad rifle, you just have to know how to use it. That includes aiming point at various ranges, 100m direct fire, 200m at neck level and 300m top of head, though with the new rounds, it's 200m still chest level and 300m neck level for center of mass hits.
My biggest gripe is probably the auto-fire selector, but OTOH, we almost never go rock and roll. It is a stupid place to put the switch, but I think the design was actually catered to the SAR-21 LMG, where standard posture is right hand on trigger guard, left on buttstock pressed to shoulder. If that was the case, the auto-fire switch would actually be directly under the left thumb and middle finger, allowing quick changes. As a rifle, unfortunately, it just ends up being a stupid function/placement.
I have to agree on the uncomfortable grip though, but hey it's just slightly uncomfortable. I known worse. And if you're in NS for comfy living... you need a mental checkup :)